Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F-15N Sea Eagle

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Deino
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jan 2000
    • 4228

    F-15N Sea Eagle

    At the hyperscale page I found this "what might have been" F-15N "Sea Eagle" built by Darren Roberts .... a great job too !!!


    http://features02.kitparade.com/f15ndr_1.htm

    Enjoy them ! :-)


    Attachments:









    ...

    He was my North, my South, my East and West,
    My working week and my Sunday rest,
    My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
    I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.

    The stars are not wanted now; put out every one:
    Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
    Pour away the ocean and sweep up the woods:
    For nothing now can ever come to any good.
    -------------------------------------------------
    W.H.Auden (1945)
  • Ference
    Senior Member
    • Jan 2000
    • 916

    #2
    RE: F-15N Sea Eagle

    [updated:LAST EDITED ON 21-08-02 AT 09:11 AM (GMT)]That's a mighty warload that Sea Eagle is carrying. Does anybody have artist's impressions of it?

    Here's some basic info (from Joe Baugher):

    "F-15N
    During the development phase of the Eagle, the US Navy was instructed in July of 1971 to take a look at a possible navalized version of the Eagle, provisionally designated F-15N. At that time, the Navy was perfectly happy with its Grumman F-14A Tomcat, which was then in its flight test phase, and was less than enthusiastic about a "Sea Eagle".
    The tailhook-equipped, navalized F-15N would weigh some 2300 pounds more than the USAF F-15A. The Navy was unhappy about the fact that the F-15N aircraft would be unable to carry or launch the AIM-54A Phoenix long-range missile. Inclusion of this missile would have increased the weight even further. Consequently, the F-15N proceeded no further than the concept stage.

    The US Senate briefly revived the carrier-based Eagle idea in March of 1973. However, the Navy decided instead to go with a mix of F-14 Tomcats and F/A-18 Hornets, and the F-15N was never ordered. "


    Best regards,

    Ference.

    Comment

    • Guest's Avatar
      Guest

      #3
      RE: F-15N Sea Eagle

      Nice conversion of a F-14D and F-15E? Thought, it would make a hot upgraded F-15F Super Strike Eagle.....How about P & W F-119 engines?

      Comment

      • avon1944
        Member
        • Jan 2000
        • 91

        #4
        RE: F-15N Sea Eagle

        While Congress briefly looked at the F-15N, mainly at the insistence of
        senators such as Senator Eagleton who was a Vice Presidential candidate
        and wanted to eliminate one of the "super fighters." Being from Missouri
        his preference was the F-15.
        After the US Navy was able to demonstrate that the F-15 was not suitable
        for fleet defense. Years later when NORAD was looking for an aircraft
        to replace the F-106 in the interceptor role, several studies were done and several of them picked the F-14A as the number one choice! Althought
        they recognized inter-service rivalry made their decision very unlikely
        to come true. I think it was the North Dakota National Guard evaluated the
        F-4 (modernized), F-14, F-15 and, F-16. Their 1st choice was the F-14, 2nd
        the F-15, the 3rd the F-4 Phantom with new engines an updated radar and
        last the F-16!
        As an interceptor the USAF liked the F-14 for its ability to operate
        autonomously, the AWG-9 and, the Phoenix missile.

        Adrian

        Comment

        • shorthome
          Senior Member
          • Jan 2000
          • 340

          #5
          RE: F-15N Sea Eagle

          I think the F-14 is the best intercept fighter of the list and the f-16 the best dogfighter and the F-15 is doing great but only the E-versions is great only i think not as good as the f-111.

          Comment

          • eagle
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Jan 2000
            • 2380

            #6
            RE: F-15N Sea Eagle

            In 1968, the gov in the US changed. It prefered common hardware for the Navy and the Air Force. To avoid a compromised design, the Air Force set the requirements for the F-X sufficently different from the Navys VFX. Plus, the prototype was deleted to advance faster so the gov would not cancel the programme.
            The decision for one crew member was not only made to save some 5000 pounds but also to differ the F-X from the VFX. }>

            In 1971, congress still wanted to eliminate one of the fighters. The Navy and the Air Force agreed to present a unified view that the planes were designed for different missions. Nevertheless, several alternatives were proposed, including acceptance of one type by both services augmented by purchase of cheaper, lighter fighters. The Air Force agreed to develop the YF-16 and the YF-17. This was more a move to satisfy the cogress than a serios plan. ;-) The AF wanted only Eagles which were regarded as superior to the leightweights.

            Several studies were made by McDD for a carrier version of the Eagle, but none of them was good enough for the Navy. An Eagle version was also offered to supplement the expensive F-14, but the F-18 was purchased for that role.

            After all, we can be happy that each service refused to take a design from the other. We probably wouldn't have Tomcats or Eagles around now.
            How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
            Yngwie Malmsteen

            Comment

            • BearCat
              Senior Member
              • Jan 2000
              • 214

              #7
              RE: F-15N Sea Eagle

              What a gorgeous *******ing plane. Fantastic model and a great subject.

              Comment

              • Browno
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Feb 2006
                • 8

                #8
                The F-15 does already have a tailhook so it could be carrier capable. It could be used in the Navy the way it already is and just designate it F-15N Sea Eagle or 'Seagle'.

                I would also rather use a two seater for Naval use.

                Why didnt they test the F-15 on a carrier in the first place?

                http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/systems/dvic223.jpg

                http://www.ilexikon.com/images/a/a3/...gle.750pix.jpg

                http://www.features02.kitparade.com/f15ndr_1.htm

                Comment

                • JoeinTX
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Feb 2004
                  • 259

                  #9
                  Sorry, Browno, but having a tailhook does not a carrier capable aircraft make. Most modern U.S. military land based aircraft do have a tailhook, the F-16 for example, but these are the emergency overrun arresting systems that USAF bases have. The differences in force applied to an airframe are very different between these two things.

                  Look at the -N model. What differences do you see? Modified landing gear (nose from F-18) and the wing fold mechanism. Some not minor differences reside there, but what you can't see is that a navalized F-15 would also significant frame strengthening to withstand the stress of carrier ops.

                  Hey, nice model and one of those "what ifs" we can visualize.....but not a plausible reality....

                  Comment

                  • Archibaald
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jan 2006
                    • 318

                    #10
                    If Rafale can make it for france (carrier and land based) why not the F-15? That save a lot of money...

                    Comment

                    • Archibaald
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jan 2006
                      • 318

                      #11
                      If Rafale can make it for france (carrier and land based) why not the F-15? That save a lot of money...

                      Comment

                      • Archibaald
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jan 2006
                        • 318

                        #12
                        If Rafale can make it for france (carrier and land based) why not the F-15? That save a lot of money...

                        Comment

                        • Archibaald
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2006
                          • 318

                          #13
                          If Rafale can make it for france (carrier and land based) why not the F-15? That save a lot of money...

                          Comment

                          • GabRaz
                            Junior Member
                            • Sep 2005
                            • 10

                            #14
                            Because Rafale was pratically designed from the beginning to have a carrier capable variant.

                            Comment

                            • Archibaald
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jan 2006
                              • 318

                              #15
                              ah yes you right!! Archibaald 0 Gabraz 1 !!
                              Your answer raise another question : is it still possible to navalize an aircraft in our days? I mean, the Typhoon for example... ?

                              Comment

                              • press
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jul 2005
                                • 543

                                #16
                                With the right amount of money...yes it is possible to navalise the Typhoon.

                                Comment

                                • sealordlawrence
                                  Senior Member
                                  • Nov 2004
                                  • 6005

                                  #17
                                  BAe claims that it is possible to navlise a Typhoon and that they have done studies to prove it. But BAe says a lot of things.

                                  Comment

                                  • Archibaald
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jan 2006
                                    • 318

                                    #18
                                    Ok so let's go for the Sea Typhoon (I saw the name on another thread..logical) on the CVF... if Great Britain cancell it's order for the F35 (unlikely alas??) . I heard GB was a bit angry about technology transfers from the USA on the JSF program. Do you think it can led to a cancelation of the JSF order ? And on this case what happen? a Sea Typhoon or even Rafale M (a common fighter on both CVFs...)

                                    Comment

                                    • EdLaw
                                      Coffee...need coffee...
                                      • Jul 2005
                                      • 1364

                                      #19
                                      Sea Typhoon is a possibility - one of the deciding factors will be the developing situations with regard to the ITAR restrictions - the Americans had promised the UK a waiver, but the Bush administration and congress have refused to actually give one. It has seriously hurt the UK/US cooperation, and things may get worse if a waiver is not forthcoming.

                                      The sad truth is that the Typhoon is the better fighter (in A2A terms), since the JSF is basically a fighter bomber that has A2A modes, and sacrifices manouvreability for stealth. The stealth aspect is proving to be less of an advantage than some first believed. If UCAV developments materialise, then we may well see the CVFs embarking a mixture of Sea Typhoons and UCAVs.

                                      Comment

                                      • Archibaald
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Jan 2006
                                        • 318

                                        #20
                                        "the JSF is basically a fighter bomber that has A2A modes, and sacrifices manouvreability for stealth"

                                        I totally agree with that. That's why I think that the JSF will be no match against a Rafale or Typhoon...

                                        Comment

                                        Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                        Collapse

                                         

                                        Working...
                                        X